Jack johnson vs Jack dempsey

In this fight he dominated one of the best technicians of his era, so you could use it as an argument for him having success against Johnson.

Nobody stops everyone.

 

Burns is an outstanding infighter on film, and a very complete fighter generally.

Obviously he was too small to be king for long at heavyweight, but he wanted for nothing in speed or infighting ability.

The fact that Johnson beat him on the very assets that had acted as his size equalizer is interesting to say the least!

 

Burns was 5'7" tall, and 168 pounds. He could not reach Johnson, and his lack of size and weight cost him as Johnson man handled him in clinches, and hit and held, which were in the rules for that fight. Hitting on a break, however, were not, which Johnson reportedly did according to Burns

According to the best early black prize fighting historian Kevin Smith and another book, Burns was also suffering from jaundice like illness for his fight with Johnson. I believe our very own Adam Pollack who also wrote a book on Burns said this illness Burns had was reported, but he can clarify.

IMO, Burns would have been better served at 175-180 in this fight.

But he was game for sure! I agree Burns on film could look very good, but I qualify that with vs men his size.

 

So, I guess Johnson would hold the mobile, circling, bobbing and weaving Dempsey with one arm and hit him with uppercuts with the other? Sure he would. I guess Johnson would use his defense of picking off a punch at a time effectively against the bone-crushing, rapid combinations of Dempsey? Sure he would. He probably would even flash his toothy grin as Jack landed rib- fracturing body punches! Sure he would!

 

Difference being, Johnson loved fighters who fought like Dempsey and tried to steamroll him. That is exactly the kind of fight he loved and thrived on. A defensive ring general is EXACTLY the kind of fighter Dempsey had trouble against. Yet somehow here, he KO's Johnson when nobody else was able to in his prime. You act like Jeffries or McVea didn't hit like a truck to name two, and yet they were never close to KOing him. Without Dempsey tinted glasses on, the reality is this, Johnson is more likely to win this fight than lose it imo. Dempsey doesn't do well fighting at range, this should be apparent by now. Yet I'm supposed to believe he coming into the Lions Den (Johnson's in-fighting, wrestling) and getting a KO... yeah, don't buy it.

 

Both men were supreme ATG talents. At their respective best I would always side with the great boxer over the puncher. Johnson was such a great defensive fighter and no one nullified an opponents inside game better.

 

Again, I am not going to make a crusade against anyone picking Johnson. However, I do have a couple points.

Who exactly tried to KO Johnson in his prime? Burns? An old, stale Jeffries who had fought in 5 years?

McVea did hit like a ton of bricks but he was 19 years old and less than a dozen fights into his career when he faced Johnson. Not the greatest litmus test perhaps.

As far as range, Dempsey- when on- was great at getting to his preferred range. Quick feet, excellent head movement, great timing. And while Johnson looks comfortable at range against the tiny foes he was filmed against. Remember that he wasn't exactly a "long" fighter. He had a rather stumpy 74" reach and not the most mobile of feet. I think Dempsey gets to where Dempsey wants to be more often than not. And then Johnson better tie him up very quickly.

 

Jack Johnson is a bit like Larry Holmes, in the sense that he has a huge run of consistency, but nobody was exceptional.

I don't think that Dempsey beat anybody who was on a different level, except perhaps Jack Sharkey.

I voted for Dempsey, but I see more problems with his body of work!

 

The rules were mutually agreed before hand both men agreed to fight their way out of clinches, and to look out for themselves on the breaks.
Burns is on record as saying he later regretted agreeing to this ,as champion he had the choice.
Kevin Smith came on this forum and told you to stop putting words in his mouth when you tried this lie the first time.
Burns did not have jaundice and he made no mention of it or any other illness after the fight , he said he may have over-trained .
Burns at 27 was in his absolute prime!
The day before the fight he stated he was in the best shape of his life having trimmed surplus fat off.He worked out publicly for the fight and reporters remarked on how sharp he looked.
" I have no excuses .Johnson beat me and beat me fairly I will acknowledge.I did not think he had such a punch or things might have been different.I made up my mind to rush him from the start and was somewhat careless.That first punch won the battle for him.I was not myself at anytime after that.Indeed I have little recollection of what followed".

Tommy Burns the next morning," Jack Johnson The Reign," Adam Pollack page 664.
"Both men fought with scrupulous fairness.Neither made an appeal to me on a foul and no foul occurred on either side".Hugh McIntosh referee and promoter of the fight.Same book, page 651.

" I am satisfied with the decision given by the referee.It was fair beyond all doubt.I tried to win.Even up to the time when the police stopped the contest I thought I had a chance,but I fully realize that up to that stage I was fairly beaten.
I do not wish to say a single word to depreciate Johnsons victory,he won and I lost and he deserves the credit. " Tommy Burns the next morning.Same book, page 655!
NB. Don't take any notice of the published weights either ,neither man weighed in!!!!

Now stop with the deliberate lies that you have been corrected on many, many,times.

 

I believe you have to factor in Burns size and wt.